Boyer et al v. US Bank, N.A. as Trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB 2004-AR3

Filing 18

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, granting 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by US Bank, N.A. as Trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB 2004-AR3.(Patch, Christine)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
________________________________
)
JOSEPH BOYER and
)
NANCY BOYER,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
13-10178-NMG
)
US Bank, N.A. as Trustee for
)
Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB )
2004-AR3,
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
This case arises out of a foreclosure action instituted by
Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. (“US Bank”) with respect to a property
in Andover, Massachusetts (“the Property”) which is currently
occupied by plaintiffs Joseph and Nancy Boyer.

Plaintiffs seek a

declaratory judgment of this Court that defendant lacked standing
to foreclose upon the Property because one of the preceding
assignments of the mortgage was invalid.
Unfortunately for plaintiffs, shortly after the foreclosure,
defendants successfully pursued summary process in Massachusetts
Housing Court, and the resulting judgment was upheld by the
Massachusetts Appeals Court in June, 2012. See U.S. Bank Nat’l
Ass’n v. Boyer, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 1102, 969 N.E.2d 748 (2012).
The Supreme Judicial Court denied further review of that decision
in September, 2012. See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Boyer, 463 Mass.
-1-

1109, 975 N.E.2d 446 (2012).

Defendants accordingly have moved

to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint under the doctrine of res
judicata.
This Court recently found that the doctrine res judicata
bars a plaintiff from seeking to invalidate a foreclosure action
that is the subject of a valid final judgment on the merits
arising from summary process between the same parties because
doing so would require re-litigation of issues decided by that
court. See Long v. Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp., 2013 WL 1389754, at
*2 (D. Mass. April 2, 2013).

That decision is directly analogous

to this case.
Plaintiffs argue that (1) the Housing Court litigation did
not, and could not, address a claim for declaratory judgment and
(2) the instant suit is based upon newly discovered evidence that
was unavailable in that forum.

Specifically, the newly

discovered evidence consists of a letter from the Southern Essex
District Registry of Deeds addressed to Joseph Boyer informing
him that the chain of title to his mortgage has been “corrupted”
by the presence of an allegedly “robo-signed” document.

Although

the letter is undated, it appears to have been mailed no earlier
than December 5, 2012, the date on which Register John O’Brien
signed an attached affidavit.
Plaintiffs cannot, however, avoid the doctrine of res
judicata based upon either argument because it applies even where

-2-

a claimant “may in the second instance present new evidence, new
theories, and new prayers for ultimate relief.” Miller v. Milton
Hosp. and Medical Center, Inc., 2013 WL 1294137, at *2 (Mass.
App. Ct., April 2, 2013) (citation omitted).

To the extent that

the newly discovered evidence would favorably effect the merits
of their claims against defendant, plaintiffs should present that
evidence to the trial court in an effort to obtain relief from
judgment pursuant to a Rule 60 motion.

Unless and until that

prior judgment is vacated, plaintiffs cannot maintain this suit.
Accordingly, the Court will allow defendant’s motion to dismiss
the complaint without prejudice, subject to renewal only if and
when plaintiffs obtain relief from the prior state court
judgment.
ORDER
In accordance with the foregoing, defendant’s motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim (Docket No. 8) is ALLOWED
and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated May 23, 2013

-3-